ArticleConflict and health2025
Exploring the role of cash-based interventions in alleviating food insecurity among the forcibly displaced: the case of Rohingya refugees, Bangladesh.
Article in Conflict and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food insecurity remains a critical determinant of health, disproportionately affecting displaced populations. Individuals forced to flee due to conflict, disasters, or economic hardship face increased challenges in accessing food, a situation worsened by COVID-19-related disruptions in food supply and relief efforts. This study examines how cash incentives mitigate food insecurity among forcibly displaced Rohingya communities in Bangladesh's Cox's Bazar district, utilizing data from the 2020-2021 Cox's Bazar high-frequency survey. Data were collected among 5020 participants. We employed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with food insecurity. Results from the multivariate model highlight that households receiving cash incentives had significantly lower odds of experiencing food insecurity (OR = 0.19, CI = 0.09-0.38), even after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors. Additionally, females (OR = 3.44, CI = 1.41-5.36), the unemployed (OR = 3.45, CI = 2.67-6.13), individuals with declining incomes (OR = 1.46, CI = 1.39-5.44), and larger households (those with more than five members) (OR = 1.89, CI = 1.35-4.47) were found to be at significantly higher risk of food insecurity. Based on these findings, we recommend that targeted cash transfer programs be institutionalized within broader national food security strategies. These programs should prioritize high-risk groups, such as unemployed individuals, female-headed households, and large families, and be integrated with employment initiatives and income support mechanisms. Furthermore, addressing social determinants such as housing and healthcare, alongside economic support, will contribute to more sustainable food security. Linking cash assistance with economic resilience strategies such as wage subsidies, social protection schemes, and vocational training can help reduce dependency on temporary relief and empower displaced populations toward long-term stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.